The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Horatius said:
And this is one of the weaknesses (or strengths, if you're not a whack job) of our system that these guys exploit. The courts will usually bend over backwards to allow people to have the time they need to present a proper defense. These delays, which have no real impact on the application of the law, are taken as "victories" by the whack jobs, who never seem to follow up on what happens later.

Notice in that thread, his last update was over a month ago. Is his mother still in jail? Was the case dismissed? Why hasn't he said anything about what's happened since that court date?
Click to expand...

His Mom was held over the weekend and let go on Monday on a promise to appear. Of course, she didn't appear, so now things are worse. (First strategy was to ignore the summons - yeah, that's a good strategy).
 
Drok wrote
Oh, and the WFS site is subject to Canadian Copyright:

http://worldfreemansociety.org/tiki-...tpage=Payments
Click to expand...

I pointed this out to Rob and freemanpete (his sidekick) on ickes and they seemed happy to take someone to court for breech of copyright as Menard said "We have a right to protect our material"
You couldnt make it up drok

ROB BELIEVES THAT AS A FREEMAN HE IS NOT BOUND BY THE STATUTES BUT THE COURTS ARE BECAUSE ITS THEIR SOCIETY AND AS SUCH HE CAN USE STATUTES AGAINST THEM:D

oh and for the record he has a lso said that it is only Canadian statutes he is not bound by as he has put in a claim of right.
If he moves somewhere else he is bound by statute?????

JB
 
jargon buster said:
Drok wrote


I pointed this out to Rob and freemanpete (his sidekick) on ickes and they seemed happy to take someone to court for breech of copyright as Menard said "We have a right to protect our material"
You couldnt make it up drok

ROB BELIEVES THAT AS A FREEMAN HE IS NOT BOUND BY THE STATUTES BUT THE COURTS ARE BECAUSE ITS THEIR SOCIETY AND AS SUCH HE CAN USE STATUTES AGAINST THEM:D

oh and for the record he has a lso said that it is only Canadian statutes he is not bound by as he has put in a claim of right.
If he moves somewhere else he is bound by statute?????

JB
Click to expand...

Hypocrisy, thy name is freeman.
 
remirol said:
Once again, there is no evidence that the statement made by the videomaker is remotely true. Every piece of conversation you have quoted is a perfectly reasonable prelude to "OK, we're going to give you some tickets now. You need to have a license and insurance before driving; do not drive the car until then."
Click to expand...

Dude,
they had already come back from the cruiser after examining everything for an extensive amount of time! If you've ever been pulled over in Ontario you'll know that if they come back and return your documents without a ticked, you are good to go. They will NEVER return anything before closing off the encounter. I've made that experience many times as I lived there for 8 years (and no, I'm not a FOTL... not yet, anyways). It is very clear to see in this video, that the documents where returned without a ticket. So I can guarantee you there was no ticked involved.

Besides, the fundamental question of this thread isn't the question of "does it work or not?" or "how many times has he or she been to jail?". Fundamentally, it's the question of legitimacy. What legitimacy does the FOTL-movement have and where is the legitimacy to be found on the other side?!?

Undoubtedly the natural/god given state of things represents the origin on which everything else builds upon. In this original state there is nothing but man kind (and other living beings of course) living absolutely free and unrestricted on the land with no boarders. Everything else (States, Boarders, Laws etc.) is a posterior invention by man. I think so far we can agree.

"Now all of the sudden there comes along this FOTL group and claims to be better and above everybody else. That can't be, can it? They must be wrong. How come I'm stuck here with all these laws and they get to be above it all?". I can imagine, some folks think like that.

Well, if they are in fact wrong, then it should be an easy task to naturally legitimize state governance and with it the restriction of unalienable rights (like doing whatever one wants to do with their body without hurting or harming the property ie. bodies of others - eg. smoking a joint in privacy).

So tell me guys, wherein lies the legitimate, god/nature given right of a state to govern human beings without their consent? In the majority? If so, how is the majority legitimized to foist their will over the minority? Does the majority have a higher standing before nature/god as opposed to the individual? Simple answer: No! Nobody (not one, nor a group of many) has the god/nature given right to rule over another human's property (incl. their own body) without their consent, period. Every human has (amongst others) the inalienable right to live for their own sake and no state has the right to define this right deceivingly, in order to match it nicely to their "laws" (eg. "Every human has the right to privacy UNLESS an act states otherwise". This was made up but the technique is being used).

Don't get me wrong: What I say doesn't mean we'd all be going on ego-trips. Social communities are a necessity of human live. Only few people can last truly on their own (which is for example why Josh has been "caught" asking for help). But it can't be coercion that keeps us together. It has to be common-law cohabitation where wisdom and the true drive to abundant living makes people FREELY want to join.

Now, of course the bashing in this thread is gonna go on. We won't really achieve an agreement (Not as long as you guys don't accept anything outside the power of man-made words!) because, many of you don't allow yourselves to be unbiased. For job related reasons these kind of people especially concentrate in and around court houses. Understandably they don't want their house of cards to collapse. So, of course there is going to be times where the FOTL clash against a wall of ignorance - probably quite frequently. That however doesn't mean they've been wrong. The power of physical force has simply been on the other side.

Pure freedom only ever works as long as one isn't confronted with a hardhead who is unable or unwilling to operate outside the matrix he or she has grown in to and is preserving. Unfortunately they keep us behind as they are willing to totally enslave themselves in order to maintain this elaborate environment "free of fear". But just because you're in fear of standing up for your freedom (as you could end up in jail like Josh's mom), you have no right to set the brave ones on the front line - who pave the way for others to come - in a derogatory light.
 
Last edited:
tobjai said:
Dude,
they had already come back from the cruiser after examining everything for an extensive amount of time! If you've ever been pulled over in Ontario you'll know that if they come back and return your documents without a ticked, you are good to go. They will NEVER return anything before closing off the encounter. I've made that experience many times as I lived there for 8 years (and no, I'm not a FOTL... not yet, anyways). It is very clear to see in this video, that the documents where returned without a ticket. So I can guarantee you there was no ticked involved.
Click to expand...

Your personal guarantee does not make the lack of evidence suddenly become evidence, nor does your hyperbole in protesting that this "NEVER" happens. There remains no evidence whatsoever to support the video-maker's claims, and as we can see in my second-linked video, he does indeed receive tickets for the same offenses cited in the first video.

In short: After the camera conveniently shut off, none of us can say what happened. Maybe he didn't get tickets, maybe he did -- but that video holds no evidence for the assertion that he didn't.

Besides, the fundamental question of this thread isn't the question of "does it work or not?" or "how many times has he or she been to jail?". Fundamentally, it's the question of legitimacy. What legitimacy does the FOTL-movement have and where is the legitimacy to be found on the other side?!?
Click to expand...
Actually, that's not really true. In practice, if reciting the magical FOTL words gets you thrown in jail, then that would be evidence to assume that the FOTL theories are not legitimate and should be discarded as worthless.

As discussed elsewhere in this thread, in the end might does make right. Modern society came together, discussed the issues, and decided that certain laws should be made and all should follow those laws. They then empowered representatives of themselves ("police") to enforce those laws, and provided them with the appropriate tools to do so. You are given two choices; comply with the laws or leave that society.

FOTL are trying to create a third version where they "leave the society", but still receive all the benefits of residing with that society -- police protection, fire protection, etc.; in other words, they just want to not have to deal with all the obligations. Doesn't work that way, of course, and so they recite their magical phrases, get tickets, get their cars impounded, and get thrown in jail on a routine basis.
 
tobjai said:
<snip>
Pure freedom only ever works as long as one isn't confronted with a hardhead who is unable or unwilling to operate outside the matrix he or she has grown in to and is preserving. Unfortunately they keep us behind as they are willing to totally enslave themselves in order to maintain this elaborate environment "free of fear". But just because you're in fear of standing up for your freedom (as you could end up in jail like Josh's mom), you have no right to set the brave ones on the front line - who pave the way for others to come - in a derogatory light.
Click to expand...

Tobjai. The problem that you, and other FOTL'ers seem to have is not being able to distinguish between the way you want the world to be and the way it actually is, as your post clearly demonstrates.

We understand your philosophical view on how society should work. While I agree it would be nice if it did work that way, I also understand human nature and in any society some people will try to impose their will on others. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. It will happen as surely as the Sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Majority rule, has the advantage of using that inevitability to create a social structure that benifits more people than in puts out.

The problem with the piece of your post that I quoted, is that you seem to be making an obique refence to compare FOTL with other civil disobedience movements, such as those led by Mohatma Gahndi in India and Martin Luther King, jr in the US. The difference is they did not object to the rule of law, but objected to the specific laws themselves being unfair. They peacefully protested unfair laws, with the full knowledge that they would be arrested. They accepted their punishment and used it to highlight the unfairness of the laws being protested. You object to the rule of law in its entirety. Whether laws are in the form of common law or statutes is irrelevant. society needs the rule of law to function. You make claims to natural law or God's law, but that is a smokescreen. What FOTL is pushing is anarchy and lawlessness.
 
tobjai said:
So tell me guys, wherein lies the legitimate, god/nature given right of a state to govern human beings without their consent?
Click to expand...

First I'd like to see evidence that this is required. In fact, states do govern human beings without their consent. In the more free states, you may leave to find a place more to your liking. In less free societies, you may be prevented from doing this.

In making a claim as to whether or not some particular procedure works, you need to consider the conditions under which it will be operating.
 
tobjai said:
Dude,
they had already come back from the cruiser after examining everything for an extensive amount of time! If you've ever been pulled over in Ontario you'll know that if they come back and return your documents without a ticked, you are good to go. They will NEVER return anything before closing off the encounter. I've made that experience many times as I lived there for 8 years (and no, I'm not a FOTL... not yet, anyways). It is very clear to see in this video, that the documents where returned without a ticket. So I can guarantee you there was no ticked involved.
Click to expand...
You can guarantee, can you? Pray tell, what were the documents that were returned - were they driver's license and registration? No. Of course not. They were his worthless FOTL fantasy documents. Why would the cops care about those? Lack of proper ID was precisely the problem and exactly why he is in such legal difficulty now.

Besides, the fundamental question of this thread isn't the question of "does it work or not?" or "how many times has he or she been to jail?". Fundamentally, it's the question of legitimacy. What legitimacy does the FOTL-movement have and where is the legitimacy to be found on the other side?!?
Click to expand...
Goalposts moved. That didn't take long. Your first post here was addressing my request for evidence that FOTL works. You failed spectacularly. You know it doesn't work, I know it doesn't work, now we all know it doesn't work. Cue the switch to ought where is fails.

Undoubtedly the natural/god given state of things represents the origin on which everything else builds upon. In this original state there is nothing but man kind (and other living beings of course) living absolutely free and unrestricted on the land with no boarders. Everything else (States, Boarders, Laws etc.) is a posterior invention by man. I think so far we can agree.
Click to expand...

You're asking a sceptic site to agree with you that "god" exists and has revealed to you a list of rights? Or that "nature" is hard-wired with social constructions like rights and ethics? C'mon. You can do better than that.

"Now all of the sudden there comes along this FOTL group and claims to be better and above everybody else. That can't be, can it? They must be wrong. How come I'm stuck here with all these laws and they get to be above it all?". I can imagine, some folks think like that.
Click to expand...

They don't get to be above it all. When they try, they fail. As you have shown with the evidence you have presented. And being "above it all" for FOTLers only means that FOTLers don't want any of the duties or responsiblities of citizenship - they only want the benefits. They want to use public resources without contributing to them. They want to be free of statutory law, but apply it when it suits them. They are socipathic freeeloaders. Hopefully, the pot-smoking means they won't eventually turn violent.

Well, if they are in fact wrong, then it should be an easy task to naturally legitimize state governance and with it the restriction of unalienable rights (like doing whatever one wants to do with their body without hurting or harming the property ie. bodies of others - eg. smoking a joint in privacy).
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope you fools manage to grab some land and set up your own society. I will watch with interest as you develop a body of law that restricts some individudal rights for the sake of the common good, at the same time as you continue to call these rights "god-given" and "natural". I will laugh as you come to realize that the practical requirements of governance force you to rely on the principle of implied consent. And when you succumb to the need to codify your laws, I will laugh as you create a new generation of malcontents that cry "I do not consent to be bound by your statutes!".

So tell me guys, wherein lies the legitimate, god/nature given right of a state to govern human beings without their consent? In the majority? If so, how is the majority legitimized to foist their will over the minority? Does the majority have a higher standing before nature/god as opposed to the individual? Simple answer: No! Nobody (not one, nor a group of many) has the god/nature given right to rule over another human's property (incl. their own body) without their consent, period. Every human has (amongst others) the inalienable right to live for their own sake and no state has the right to define this right deceivingly, in order to match it nicely to their "laws" (eg. "Every human has the right to privacy UNLESS an act states otherwise". This was made up but the technique is being used).
Click to expand...

Rights are not god-given. God is a delusion. Natural rights are a fiction - they are a rhetorical device for you to sanctify your hopes and dreams for the way the world ought to be. Be glad you live in a country where minority group rights are written in to the constitution. Not even the USA has that. Be glad you live in a society where everyone has the ability to affect, to some degree or another, the content of the rights that we democratically grant ourselves. You have a voice. Use it.

Don't get me wrong: What I say doesn't mean we'd all be going on ego-trips. Social communities are a necessity of human live. Only few people can last truly on their one (which is for example why Josh has been "caught" asking for help). But it can't be coercion that keeps us together. It has to be common-law cohabitation where wisdom and the true drive to abundant living makes people FREELY want to join.
Click to expand...

You have no clue what the common law is. Seriously. You are profoundly ignorant.

And when you establish freetopia, what will be the mechanism for establishing consent? How about for the 2nd generation of freepers? The 20th? The 100th? Will there be a mechanism for them to consent when they come of age? What will it look like? Will it look something like a constitutional democracy?

Now, of course bashing in this thread is gonna go on. We won't really achieve an agreement (Not as long as you guys don't accept anything outside the power of man-made words!) because, many of you don't allow yourselves to be unbiased. For job related reasons these kind of people especially concentrate in and around court houses. Understandably they don't want their house of cards to collapse. So, of course there is going to be times where the FOTL clash against a wall of ignorance - probably quite frequently. That however doesn't mean they've been wrong. The power of physical force has simply been on the other side.
Click to expand...

Man-made words are what FOTL morons put into Claims of Right and Notices of Understanding and all the other snake oil that Rob sells you. Rob's Very CUnning Plan includes a police force and a court system. What will they use to enforce contracts? A comfy chair? Or, goodness me...maybe force of some kind?

Pure freedom only ever works as long as one isn't confronted with a hardhead who is unable or unwilling to operate outside the matrix he or she has grown in to and is preserving. Unfortunately they keep us behind as they are willing to totally enslave themselves in order to maintain this elaborate environment "free of fear". But just because you're in fear of standing up for your freedom (as you could end up in jail like Josh's mom), you have no right to set the brave ones on the front line - who pave the way for others to come - in a derogatory light.
Click to expand...

Listen, Neo. Here are five women who stood up for freedom for the benefit of you, me and Josh's Mom:

http://www.abheritage.ca/famous5/achievements/persons_case.html

You have stood up for nothing other than your own selfish desire to get free benefits from Canada. Begone with you.
 
Last edited:
remirol said:
In short: After the camera conveniently shut off, none of us can say what happened. Maybe he didn't get tickets, maybe he did -- but that video holds no evidence for the assertion that he didn't.
Click to expand...



In one of the linked threads above, someone pointed out that it looked like, in that case, he was in the parking lot or driveway of his house/apartment building. If that's the case, he probably wouldn't have gotten a ticket, as it's not necessary to have plates on purely private property. If the cops hadn't seen him on the road, they would have just warned him about not taking the car on the road without the proper documents - which is what we did see, when the cops referred to "the highway".

Of course, now that they know who he is, and that he really does believe this nonsense about not needing plates or a driver's license, you can be sure they have an eye out for him whenever they pass that way. As soon as he moves that car off his driveway, he'll likely get nailed - which we also see in the other videos posted. That's why I was asking if anyone knew when they were taken relative to each other.
 
Horatius said:
In one of the linked threads above, someone pointed out that it looked like, in that case, he was in the parking lot or driveway of his house/apartment building. If that's the case, he probably wouldn't have gotten a ticket, as it's not necessary to have plates on purely private property. If the cops hadn't seen him on the road, they would have just warned him about not taking the car on the road without the proper documents - which is what we did see, when the cops referred to "the highway".

Of course, now that they know who he is, and that he really does believe this nonsense about not needing plates or a driver's license, you can be sure they have an eye out for him whenever they pass that way. As soon as he moves that car off his driveway, he'll likely get nailed - which we also see in the other videos posted. That's why I was asking if anyone knew when they were taken relative to each other.
Click to expand...

I read another thread over on WFS where exactly that happened. The London cops were aware of the phony FOTL license plates on another FOTLer's van as it was parked in his driveway. They monitored it and took notice of when it wasn't in his driveway. This was a factor in his eventual arrest.
 
Last edited:
tobjai said:
You guys must be in denial.

Several times the one cop says "k, perfect"... and then even goes on to say "once you go on to the highway you need to have insurance".

With other words they've just agreed to Joshua being clear for travelling around in his automobile anywhere but on the highway (AND stand yet to be corrected on this account).

As the video comes to an end the cops are merely having a conversation with Josh, learning some more about individual sovereignty.
Cop: "So you are going for common law right to transit... essentially, right?... It's not something we deal with very frequently"
"Do you guys have OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan)".... NO
"Do you have any provincial benefits".... NO
At this point the cop is confirming, that Josh doesn't just pick and choose from the system.

BTW: Another very interesting video on Josh's channel is the one where he is being barred from entering the supposed public court room by a bunch of armed thugs.

I understand you guys are trying hard to justify un-natural state coercion while padding each others shoulders. But I'm sorry guys. This is proof. It's indisputable that these Police officers have taken their job seriously and indeed acted as peace officers on behalf of the people, and not on behalf of the crown corporation!
Click to expand...
brilliant, no really this is spectacular.
Basically he can drive his car anywhere he wants as long as it's not on the roads, so all he needs to do now is plan his route through fields, gardens and disused railway tracks etc and he's good to go.
 
BobHaulk said:
brilliant, no really this is spectacular.
Basically he can drive his car anywhere he wants as long as it's not on the roads, so all he needs to do now is plan his route through fields, gardens and disused railway tracks etc and he's good to go.
Click to expand...


....until he's arrested for trespassing!
 
Yes.
In that thread on the st cahtarines standard board (It has unfortuanately dissappeared. Guess the admins there really didn't like random RL Name dropping, clearly done to intimidate) Menard added a new funny twist to his magical thinking:
All statutes apply, except for those of the country you are born in. And thats because you didn't enter voluntarily, but where born there. Freemen are not free to travel it seems, and their god given right to travel must come from some obscure canadian deity, not worshipped anywhere else it seems...
 
magellan said:
Yes.
In that thread on the st cahtarines standard board (It has unfortuanately dissappeared. Guess the admins there really didn't like random RL Name dropping, clearly done to intimidate) Menard added a new funny twist to his magical thinking:
All statutes apply, except for those of the country you are born in. And thats because you didn't enter voluntarily, but where born there. Freemen are not free to travel it seems, and their god given right to travel must come from some obscure canadian deity, not worshipped anywhere else it seems...
Click to expand...

That would be Canook the Frozen. Often depicted as a man with a Moose's head holding a flat wooden staff with a bend at the top.
 
magellan said:
Yes.
In that thread on the st cahtarines standard board (It has unfortuanately dissappeared. Guess the admins there really didn't like random RL Name dropping, clearly done to intimidate) Menard added a new funny twist to his magical thinking:
All statutes apply, except for those of the country you are born in. And thats because you didn't enter voluntarily, but where born there. Freemen are not free to travel it seems, and their god given right to travel must come from some obscure canadian deity, not worshipped anywhere else it seems...
Click to expand...



Well, that actually makes a kind of twisted sense. They make a big to-do about "consent", and how they haven't consented to the laws of the land they were born into. However, the voluntary act of entering another jurisdiction with clearly defined laws could be reasonably construed as consenting to those laws. They're just upset they were never given a choice about the Canadian Laws, I guess.

Under this reasoning , if we were to eject them from Canada, they wouldn't then be subject to the other country's laws, as their "travel" would have been involuntary.

Now, if they do go on vacation to, say, Florida, can we refuse to let them back in unless they consent to the laws? Can returning to Canada be construed as consent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom